Jon Krakauer Rhetorical Analysis

2136 Words5 Pages

Jon Krakauer is an American writer and mountaineer. Krakauer is best known for his bestselling non-fiction books Into the Wild, Into Thin Air, Under the Banner of Heaven, and Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman. He began making these incredible books after his dangerous 1996 Mt. Everest expedition, which most of his books have to do with nature. Henry David Thoreau was an American naturalist and essayist. Thoreau is best known for his bestselling book Walden and his essay Civil Disobedience. He began making these books and essays after deciding to be a leading transcendentalist as a reflection upon simple living in natural surroundings. Both of these authors have incredible writing styles, but they are different from each other. …show more content…

Aristotelian is a popular method used by authors to organize their thoughts and arguments effectively. This method relies on pathos to evoke emotions, ethos to establish credibility, and logos to present logical reasoning. Aristotelian is still widely used today because it is an efficient way to persuade and convince the audience. Tarango Alyssa 4 Reasoning methods of inductive and deductive differ in their ways. The main difference between them is that inductive reasoning involves starting from a specific scenario and forming a general conclusion from it, while deductive reasoning involves making a generalized statement and using specific examples to form a specific conclusion. Inductive reasoning is also referred to as “cause-and-effect reasoning”. For example, people might observe that their older brother is tall, their friend’s older brother is tall, and their dad’s older brother is tall. Inductive reasoning would say that, therefore, all older brothers are tall. Deductive reasoning can be seen as a “top-down” approach to concluding. Consider the statement "All oranges are …show more content…

This shows how there was inductive reasoning involved starting from a specific scenario and forming a general Tarango Alyssa 6 conclusion from how Chris was always rebellious so the readers can conclude that Chris was not crazy but he always had the destiny to be rebellious and always wanted to seek danger and nothing will change that for him not even his family or close friends. Fallacious reasoning is a common error that can damage the logic of an author's arguments. It often occurs in illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points and is usually due to a lack of evidence to support a claim. This can harm an author's credibility, causing the audience to lose trust in the author's reasoning. One fallacy that Krakauer used in his writing was to build up his reasoning that McCandless's dream of living in the wilderness was seen as weird by others around him. Krakauer also used an appeal to ignorance, arguing that his conclusion must be true because there is no evidence against

More about Jon Krakauer Rhetorical Analysis

Open Document